Anyone think we need to pay Jenkins now?

Although Neal showed some promise last year, I'd feel much more confident if he was complementing jenkins rather than replacing him. Jenkins and Neal sounds much better as a one to two punch in passing situations than Neal and blank because Neal is still a bit of an unknown and who will play opposite him? I think Neal would benefit from not having pressure on him to be that guy, as jenkins is already accustomed to it, and just goin out and playing ball. Idk we'll see Teddy knows what he's doin

I know stats sometimes don't tell the entire story, but Jenkins only had 22 tackles (includes sacks) the entire year including the playoffs and Super Bowl. He also only had 1/2 a sack for the three playoff games and Super Bowl combined.

Personally I would rather spend the money on another free agent DE from a different team. Someone younger with more upside. I still hope Jenkins returns, but some team will probably get stupid (read the Bears) and overpay him.

No love for Lawrence Guy? I think he'll fit Capers scheme well. We need to get younger on the DL anyway. We already got two guys exceeding 30 (Pickett and Green). Neal, Wilson, Raji, and Guy plus Pickett, Green is a good 6-man rotation without breaking the bank.

I pray we keep him and offer him whatever he is asking as long as it is in our means and it doesn't negativity impact other players. It's a simple law of economics, if you want quality, you pay more for it.

Click to expand...

True, but another concept in economics is "zero sum game" and as applied to the NFL it means paying Jenkins what he is worth and/or what he will be asking leaves exactly that much less money and (presumably) cap room to sign and/or extend other core players. So paying Jenkins will negatively impact other players. Don’t get me wrong, I love the pass rush Jenkins brings from his DL spot. But I think Thompson's way is to prepare to replace players who are, or who are about to be, on the downside of their careers and Cullen turned 30 in January. In addition, of the last 48 regular season games, Jenkins has played in 31; so of the last three regular seasons, he's basically missed one season.

Mike Neal is an unknown but I believe Thompson and the Packers think of him as Jenkins' replacement. This may sound strange but I think one more thing that goes against re-signing Jenkins is Capers' ingenuity. His defense played great in the post season, getting significant contributions from street free agents and undrafted rookies like Green, Walden, Zombo, and Shields.

Jenkins repeated Wednesday what he has previously said, that he wanted to stay in Green Bay enough that he offered last year to take less money to stay with the Packers than he thought he could make in free agency, but the Packers weren’t interested.

“Heading into last year, I’ve always been up there and always been a Packer, and I wanted to stay a Packer,” Jenkins said, per Jason Wilde of ESPNMilwaukee.com. “So we approached the team and wanted to get some type of security, some type of longer-term deal before the season so I would know I would be there. It wasn’t about money, it was about security, about trying to see if we could work something out.”

When asked if he would have given the Packers a hometown discount, Jenkins said, “Yeah. That was the thought then. I knew in going to them, I know Green Bay, I know the market, I know how they handle business, and the thought was if we could get something reasonable worked out, I knew I would take less than what I could’ve gotten in free agency. But they never approached me with anything and never got any type of negotiations going. It’s just how the business is. They had a lot of younger guys and felt they could move forward in that direction.”

So Jenkins expects to sign with another team, whenever free agents are allowed to sign with teams. He may not have to move his family too far, as the Bears are thought to be interested.

Click to expand...

Sorry I can't post the link because of my status. He really wanted to stay in Green Bay from the sound of the article.